Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO:

01 November 2019

Version of attached �le:

Accepted Version

Peer-review status of attached �le:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Martelli, Jean-Thomas and Ar�, Bar��s (2018) 'From one participant cohort to another : surveyinginter-generational political incubation in an Indian University.', India review., 17 (3). pp. 263-300.

Further information on publisher's website:

https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2018.1473319

Publisher's copyright statement:

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor Francis in India review on [date of publication],available online:http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14736489.2018.1473319

Additional information:

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, forpersonal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro�t purposes provided that:

• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source

• a link is made to the metadata record in DRO

• the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United KingdomTel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971

https://dro.dur.ac.uk

FROM ONE PARTICIPANT COHORT TO ANOTHER: SURVEYING INTER-GENERATIONAL

POLITICAL INCUBATION IN AN INDIAN UNIVERSITY

Jean-Thomas Martelli is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the King’s India Institute, King’s College

London and a sessional lecturer at Sciences Po Paris.

Email: jtm.martelli@gmail.com

Barış Arı is a PhD candidate in Political Sciences at the Department of Government, University of Essex.

Email: barisari@live.com

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank both reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier

version of the manuscript, as these comments led us to an improvement of the work. This research

was supported in part by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number 1511566] through

a Research Training Support Grant to Barış Arı.

SUMMARY

Several recent studies propose that political choices of Indian youth can hardly be distinguished from

those of their parents in many respects. Contrary to this well-established understanding, this article

shows that when set apart from the spheres of family and work, students in a flagship Indian university

– mostly in the social sciences and humanities – gradually transform their political attitudes in light of

prolonged exposure to a campus environment. Through combining ethnographic study with the

analysis of a survey of political attitudes of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students, we show that

time spent in situ fosters participation to political activities, increases chances of joining a student

organization and make students more likely to identify themselves as politically radical. The class and

caste background of students, on the other hand, are not strongly associated with political attitudes,

showing the integrative nature of politicization on the JNU campus.

Keywords: student politics; Indian youth; political socialization

Additional Keywords: activism, student attitudes, campus politics, Indian communism, Indian left,

micro-cohorts, elites, generations, social movements, political values, ethnography, survey studies,

political sociology, political science, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

1

INTRODUCTION

Recent survey studies1 show that in many respects, political choices of Indian youth can hardly be

distinguished from those of their parents. Contrary to this well-established understanding, this article

shows that when set apart from the spheres of family and work, students in a flagship Indian university –

mostly in the social sciences and humanities – gradually transform their political attitudes in light of

prolonged exposure to a campus environment. The article provides a case study of the everyday politics

of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), a prestigious postgraduate and residential ‘central university’2 in

New Delhi. We build our argument by combining ethnographic evidence drawing from 16 months of

fieldwork with quantitative analysis of novel survey data.

The study argues that observed transformations are driven by an intergenerational process of

peer-to-peer socialization, in which politicized ‘seniors’ greatly influence the attitude of new cohorts. A

setting such as JNU facilitates the formation of intergenerational political kinships often at odds with

one’s previous worldview. Sustained activist competition and rivalry, channeled by well-organized

student organizations, create multiple incentives for progressive partisan identification. While caste, class

and community identities partly mediate political subjectivities and the meaning-making of students,

these markers alone do not drive the political participation. In the present case, student politicization

inclines towards inclusiveness, even though women and upper-class students tend to be less affected by

it.

The diachronic process which enables the acquisition of new political values cannot be separated

from the development of increasingly complex networks of loyalties and friendships involving student

activists. These figures appear to be crucial authorities on campus, as they also turn out to be seniors,

bhaiya/didi (brother/sister, also friend), councilors, patrons and fixers. The political impact of these

leaders is further legitimated by activist-professors, who often have an analogous background in student

activism, and share both mentorship of affiliated participants and the ideological narratives of common

students.

2

This ethnographic study proposes a portrayal of the ordinary course of micro-politics on campus

without reducing it to an electoral game. We make the epistemic choice of inferring from daily instances

of political participation rather than on exceptional occurrences of political unrest. In order to present a

parsimonious picture of the encompassing effects of prolonged campus presence, the article does not

provide an exhaustive account of the ideological cleavages between the various political student groups

found at JNU. The aim is to reveal that the politicization experienced by various student communities on

campus is pervasive and goes beyond ideological divides.

The picture presented by the ethnographic study is then tested on survey data that the first

author has collected in the first semester of the 2014-15 academic year. Through the empirical analysis,

we find that time spent as a JNU student is positively associated with self-reported political radicalization,

the likelihood of membership to a political organization, and participation in political events. These

findings are robust to various model specifications. Even when we control for age, the number of

semesters spent studying at JNU is a significant predictor of politicization. Overall, the empirical analysis

is highly consistent with the ethnographic study. Based both on our work in the field and the empirical

analysis of the survey data, we propose that exposure to the JNU environment profoundly influences

students in terms of political attitudes and behavior.

The rest of the contribution is structured around two main sections. The article first provides a

brief overview of the literature on student and youth politics in the world and in India while discussing

the historical endurance of the political culture at JNU. It then presents the ethnographic study carried

out by the first author. The section outlines the central role of peers and professors in the passing down

of political values and practices. Next, the paper substantiates the argument by quantifying the

politicization at hand. Informed by the ethnographic analysis, we formulate four testable hypotheses. We

continue with the empirical analysis of the original survey data, which shows strong support for our

arguments.

3

EXPLAINING YOUTH POLITICAL ATTITUDES: THE UNRESOLVED ‘PRIMARY VS SECONDARY

SOCIALIZATION’ DEBATE

One of the most reliable findings in survey studies conducted in Western countries is that political

partisanship is mostly influenced by childhood socialization, and often gains strength over the course of

a lifetime.3 As Inglehart notes, “a large body of evidence indicates that people’s basic values are largely

fixed when they reach adulthood, and change relatively little thereafter.”4 Most quantitative accounts

looking at lifetime trajectories stress the importance of the worldview of parents in the development of

political attitudes,5 which subsequently display stability across the phases of adulthood.6 These studies

concentrating on pre-adult value transmission in the family show that parents have more influence than

professors and peers regarding political attitudes.7

Recent political science scholarship shows the limits of the persistence model of political

socialization, which emphasizes the crystallization of political personalities before adulthood.

Alternatives propose that certain young adults are particularly open to changing their early acquired

political perceptions in consistence with both the life-cycle model and the impressionable years model.8

The latter approach claims that individuals are attracted to certain attitudes at specific life junctures, such

as conservatism at the age of retirement and radical ideas at a young age.9 The former shows that the

zeitgeist and the Lagerung10 could influence a whole generation,11 thus forging collective memories of

often traumatic events, such as French youth during the Algerian war and the protests of May 196812 or

young Americans during the Vietnam War.13 The current youth in Western democracies commonly

display mistrust for institutions and representatives, leading to decreased voting turnout and partisan

allegiance, a lack of belief in political narratives, and greater involvement in participatory forms of

democracy.14

The work of Percheron identifies three possible roles of education in shaping the political

attitudes of students.15 The content of educational classes determines to a certain extent the student’s

understanding of institutions and norms of one’s society. School is also a place where certain democratic

4

mechanisms are learned through the election of class representatives and school councils.16 Almond and

Verba showed the efficiency of school participation in the preparation for political life.17 Finally, school is

the place where individuals learn to develop certain forms of horizontal social relations with peers.18 The

scholarship challenging the persistence model usually supports the notion that university impacts socio-

political attitudes, because students socialize with each other.19 University provides free spaces to

cultivate alternative ideologies20 and to interact with mates from diverse cultural and social

backgrounds.21

Our study proposes that local contexts such as campus spaces influence political preferences,22

thus we are keen to emphasize the transformative impact of interpersonal relations.23 This approach is

at odds with most behavioral studies in the United States that consider political attitudes to be a product

of “personal” calculus, irrespective of the individual’s immediate social environment.24

Challenging this approach, the recent literature focusing on biographical consequences of social

movements has been less hesitant to acknowledge the importance of place on the selective socialization

of youth cohorts. According to this line of research, commitment to political activities may not only

involve political learning,25 but also the opening up of new life chances26 and the acquisition of new

identifications,27 in turn fostering the institutionalization of grassroots protests.28 Personal

transformations are accompanied by shifts in political imagination29 and religious orientation.30 They

trigger feelings of ‘satiety’ over victorious issues31 and are accompanied by a phase of cognitive liberation

often prefiguring political mobilization.32

Sustained political participation does have long-lasting effects on the lives of its protagonists. As

summarized by Giugni,33 follow-up studies of American New Left student activism show that social

movement activities have profoundly affected their biographies, which appear to differ significantly from

those of non-activist generations. Even years after the events, former activists displayed more radical

ideologies and greater participation in conventional politics and protests. These studies acknowledge the

long-lasting effects of collective exposure to political environments. Within these settings, cohorts of

5

participants build distinct collective identities.34 Campus socialization is thus fueled by a dual process of

assimilation and expectation building.35

For the purpose of our study, political socialization can be defined as a continuous, multi-situated

and processual interaction36 in which Indian youth develop new understandings of society, gender, labor,

caste, history and self-identity. Social movement scholars argue that the comprehension of politics

changes overtime and that youth university students are more likely to experience such ideological

refashioning. Youth is seen both as a distinct phase of development and a period for expressing cultural

agency,37 where individuals incorporate a secondary form of habitus, internalizing new orientations to

action.38 When marrying, starting employment or registering as a university student, a youngster is likely

to resettle and socially adjust to unknown environments. In the case of university education, the

individual is a stranger in a new academic environment and “is about to transform himself [sic] from an

unconcerned onlooker into a would-be member of the approached group.”39 Because of the rapidly

changing roles experienced during early adulthood, we can confidently say that discontinuities in political

behavior and attitudes are more likely to occur in this time period than later in life.40

INTRODUCING THE POLITICS OF INDIAN EDUCATED YOUTH

In the aftermath of the 1968 student movements around the world, explanations of student mobilization

in the Indian context stressed mostly socio-psychological factors. Some authors focused on generational

conflict between parents and dependents41 while others emphasized the weakening of traditional

authority structures42 and the alienation of youth from the decision-making processes of political

institutions.43 These reductionist approaches, while looking at youth as a transformative phase of life, did

not explicitly question the empirical processes at work in gradual campus politicization.

As Shah summarizes, the literature on student movements in India is scant after the 1980s and

full of “stray observations, wishful thinking and personal anecdotes.”44 Most of the work focusing on so-

called “student indiscipline” portrays student behavior as an unchanging given. Such accounts depict

6

political participation by youth either as a component of party politics45 or as a pathological aspiration for

agitation.46

Recent scholarship emphasizes the lack of ideological character of South Asian student politics

after the anti-colonial47 nationalist movement (1905-1947).48 It often depicts joining a student branch of

a political party as a way to secure one’s personal interests, such as a seat in a student hall,49 or to

accumulate private networks for business opportunities at the local level.50 Student politics is understood

within the framework of patronage where leaders,51 aligned with political parties, indulge in goondaism

(criminal behavior),52 violent disturbances53 and caste-based brokerage, often involving lucrative

mediation between university administrations and private contractors.54 Political participation is viewed

as an instrument for future leadership in national or regional politics.55 Often derided by students as

opportunists or sycophants (chamchas),56 student leaders (netas) are associated with ‘dirty’ politicians

and blamed for their careerism,57 their dishonesty58 and their corruption.59

Political actors themselves tend however to depict Indian youth as potential force of agitation

against the establishment.60 Various manifestos and press releases of Indian Communist and Maoist

parties emphasize the rebellious nature of students.61 According to these views, student political activists

carry an inherent but mostly latent ability to reject mainstream careerist party politics. As a former

general secretary of the JNU students’ union declared, students can “acquire a heightened or radical

consciousness through ideological engagement and praxis in order to transform aspects of society

through the political process.”62 Post-independence student radicalism is associated with the anti-

corruption movement led by former freedom fighter Jay Prakash Narayan (termed the JP movement) in

Bihar in 197463 and to the resistance against the decision of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to impose

internal Emergency.64 Peasant-oriented Maoist rebellion in the late 1960s in West Bengal attracted

academically accomplished65 and highly educated urban youth.66 Students also substantially supported

the 1965 anti-Hindi protests67 in Madras state (today’s Tamil Nadu) and participated in the movement for

the creation of the state of Telangana, including the 1952 Mulkhi (local) agitation and more recent

mobilization leading to the formation of the state in June 2014.68

7

Nevertheless, when looking at the pan-Indian picture, patterns of youth politicization remain

unclear. The third round of the Youth Survey69 indicates that when it comes to politics, youth tend to be

undistinguishable from senior generations. The offspring of parents who take interest in politics are more

likely to be interested in politics than youth whose parents do not have any interest.70

The lack of distinctiveness of youth politicization in India is confirmed by the work of Kumar.71 By

analyzing five parliamentary elections covering the period 1996-2014, he proposes that there is no voting

pattern for youth when compared to subsequent generations. He also shows that politicized youth are

not led by their educated sections. Both 2006 and 2016 survey rounds show the endurance of

absenteeism in which the voting turnout of illiterate youth exceeds that of graduates. College-educated

young women in India participate less than non-literate young women and the upper class records the

lowest level of electoral participation overall.72

Overall, educational experiences of Indian youth do not seem to significantly increase their

‘political consciousness’ in the long run. This sits at odds with the literature on youth politics in the Global

South which portrays youth as a politicized life-stage.73 More specifically, studies on student movements

in various countries acknowledge the leading role taken by elite universities,74 and in particular those in

the social sciences.75

Through looking at the way JNU students get socialized into politics, we demonstrate that this

university is coherent with the global picture but might stand as an exception in the Indian political

landscape. Accordingly, the first stage of the following analysis engages with the history of youth activism

at JNU and scrutinizes how rivalrous political cultures of the left have taken root on campus for more

than four decades.

8

THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY IN HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

On its inauguration day, 14 November 1969, the Indian National Congress leader and Prime Minister

Indira Gandhi wished that Jawaharlal Nehru University would become an institution “conducive to social

change.”76 Batabyal shows how, in the wake of India’s socialist and secular zeitgeist, many appointed

professors in disciplines such as History, Economics and International Relations abided by the leftist

credos defended by the party in power and its political ally of the time, the Communist Party of India

(CPI).77

However, it did not take long for JNU to become an anti-establishment and anti-Emergency78

center,79 led mainly by student representatives leaning towards alternative left ideologies. It was led by

the newly formed Students’ Federation of India (SFI), an affiliate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

(CPI(M)) – i.e. a splinter group of CPI which governed the state of West Bengal from 1977 to 2011.80 SFI

leadership was challenged by the autonomous student group Free Thinkers,81 inspired by Indian socialists

Ram Manohar Lohia and the aforementioned Jai Prakash Narayan. A third stream of leftism represented

marginalised groups embracing more radical ideologies such as Trotskyism82 and Maoist-inspired83

Naxalism.

After the Emergency, JNU student politics became an enduring bastion of competing left

ideologies along with other campuses such as Jadavpur University, Presidency College (West Bengal),

Osmania (Telangana) and several Colleges in Kerala.84 Commentators, whether enthusiasts or skeptics,

usually consider JNU from its inception as a leftist landmark in Indian politics. It has been recognized as

an enduring Marxist bastion,85 a space of academic and political dissent through debate and discussion,86

a place where professors preach new-left ideologies87 and an environment in which activism is an integral

part of student life.88

Data collected by the first author indicates that most of the JNU student representatives are

affiliated to political organizations; only less than 20 percent of the elected presidents of the JNU Student

9

Union were supported by independent platforms (see Table 1). This is consistent with the fairly long

legacy of political alignment and mentoring on campuses across the country.89 Such tradition took roots

in the 1930s when the National independence leaders such as Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru

started using student forums both as a recruitment agency and as a platform to pressurize the Congress

towards more separatism and militant positions.90 This approach was soon emulated by the then united

Indian communist party which took control of the main organized body of students at the All-India

Students’ Conference in Nagpur in 1940.91 After independence, various new political outfits created their

own student wings in order to gain control of university campuses. Table 1 shows the organizational

strength of various communist parties in the JNU campus; it also reflects the ideological divisions of Indian

communism, which resulted in various splits in the past half-century.

[Table 1]

JNU politics is however not exclusively the prerogative of secular politics, and student groups

with ethnic nationalist ideologies can also be found.92 For example, in October 2014, a raucous campus

protest was organized by Hindu nationalist groups such as the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP

– the Indian Students’ Association), a student outfit associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(RSS – the National Volunteer Corps). The protests followed a seminar on “Mahishasur Shahadat Diwas”

(Mahishasur Martyrdom Day) by a group of Dalit and Other Backward Classes (OBC) students,93 who

described this mythological figure (traditionally portrayed in Hindu mythology as a demon from the Yadav

caste killed by goddess Durga) as an allegory of upper caste social oppression.94

More importantly, the implementation of new affirmative action mechanisms (referred to as

‘reservations’) in higher education has led to a fierce resistance.95 In 2006, a new campus-based political

outfit, Youth for Equality, particularly active at JNU, emerged in opposition to caste-based reservation

and in support of “merit”96 and the enforcement of admission quotas based exclusively on economic and

gender disparities rather than on caste divides.97 This followed the Congress-led government decision to

extend reservation for OBCs to educational institutions funded by the central authorities.98 Before 1990,

10

an existing 15 percent reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 7.5 per cent quota for Scheduled Tribes

(STs) was in place.99 A section of the upper castes at JNU and beyond reacted furiously to this measure;

according to some reports more than 150 students attempted to immolate themselves in different

incidents of protest across India.100

While the distinctive political character of JNU is an established fact, the reasons for its endurance

over the years – amidst a changing, and increasingly hostile political landscape – remain uncertain. Thus,

we are now interested in describing how cultures of participation at JNU are potentially reproductive,

notably through the daily actions of micro-cohorts of activists.

The Passing Down of a Culture: A Qualitative Account of Political Socialization in JNU

The historical record of JNU student politics indicates that a section of JNU students, whether right-wing

or left-wing, display ostensibly high levels of politicization. When visiting JNU, it is easy to witness that

cohorts of activist students personally engage with political issues on an everyday basis. Interviews and

accounts of politically active residents indicate that they attach political meaning to various university

spaces. It is where students “have planned revolution as well as found romance” says Sandeep Singh,

former Student Union president.101 Kavita Krishnan, 1995 JNU Student Union Joint Secretary reflects on

her experience at JNU; “for an introverted and intensely private person, it was exhilarating to discover a

world of warm solidarity, collectivity and comradeship created in the course of late-night debates at the

dhabas (food stall), marching in torch-light processions, writing leaflets and organizing movements.102

[Table 2]

Professorial contributions to the political debate are also apparent. The JNU faculty often recruits

academics who were politically active during their own education. Based on our research on the patterns

of JNU activism, Table 2 shows that the majority (60.4 percent) of those who had held important Student

Union positions during their student life joined academia after graduation. Data was collected and

crosschecked through conducting interviews of former JNU student leaders.103 This passage of politically

11

active students to academic positions also contributes to the reproduction of an environment that values

political discussions, both in classes and in evening canteen meetings. One JNU professor reflects that “so

for me having been a student activist, it was a natural transition to being a teachers’ activist.”104

Another crucial aspect lies in the fact that the everyday routine at JNU tends to abolish the

distinction between social and political activities on campus. Political events organized under the banner

of student organizations include various leisurely venues that cannot be seen only as part of a pre-

electoral campaign. Reading and music events, film screenings, street plays, memorial lectures, and

workshops are organized on a nearly daily basis and involve a high degree of intra-organization

competition.105 Pamphlet distribution and poster-making also play an important role in student

interaction. For instance, during the year 2015 only, there were a total of 392 posters posted on the walls

all around the campus.

Beyond electoral politics, political organizations aspire to occupy public spaces and provide

political interpretations of cultural and religious artifacts such as festivals (e.g. the Hindu celebration

Durga Puja), Hindu scriptures, popular cinema, or flag hoisting on Independence Day. As a senior activist

puts it, “there is no pause in the political game”106 and this puts most proactive activists under constant

pressure, as they need to reach out all day and all night long.

Acknowledgement of political effervescence can take various forms; one activist-professor of JNU

talks about a space of conscientisation; an elected leader boldly claims that JNU “taught him

everything.”107 Ethnographic evidence shows that activists constantly relate to JNU as a founding

experience in their political apprenticeship. As a former JNU student reflects, “Jawaharlal Nehru

University is always a Dickensian scenario. Imagine 1968 Paris being repeated over and over again – the

slogans, the sexual liberation, the orgasmic enthusiasm for revolution, the wild dreams.”108

There are critical moments in the academic year in which the processes of socialization and

politicization are so entangled that they become inseparable. We describe below how these ‘moments’

relate to the day-to-day activities led by activists for students facing various kinds of hardships,

administrative conundrums and personal adversities. JNU activists’ patronage and readiness to address

12

student issues – which are fueled by the hope of generating sustained political loyalties – can be

considered one of the principal mechanisms of politicization on campus.

During the ten day registration period when newcomer students officially sign-up for their

programs of study, activist students make their initial contact with the arriving students. Activists

welcome newcomers by offering help to get acquainted with the JNU campus as well as by providing

assistance for the red-tape necessary for registration. Competing cohorts of activists camp in front of the

administrative offices for the so-called “registration assistance.”109 The official rationale behind this is to

facilitate the bureaucratic work for registration, but it also gives activists the opportunity to establish ties

with the newcomer students.

At a more individual level, activists appeal to the administration when scholarships are not paid

on time or when an administrative deadlock prevents a student from completing a bureaucratic task.

Student activists, especially those who have held Student Union offices, may book lecture rooms for

student seminars and public events, help students to shift their hostel (dormitory) rooms, influence

decisions on campus shop-allotment, and put students in contact with the appropriate administrators

depending on their query. They can also speed up diverse administrative queries. Discourses on the

administration are acrimonious but interpersonal relations with administrative personnel need to be

harmonious in order to “fix” student demands.

Some activists are also perceived as authoritative elders. These activists have the implicit

responsibility to solve personal problems of students, including various kinds of conflicts. Issues might be

related to family pressure, academic performance, sentimental spleen, intimate partner violence or

injuries. Becoming a student activist at JNU is not only about getting involved in student politics; it is also

about incorporating human skills that enable oneself to act like a mentor for students. In this respect, the

task of assisting individuals at a personal level and mass mobilization of students become complementary,

if not intertwined. Reflections of a former activist highlights this aspect; “after some time, you have

internalized that the rule of the game is to keep contact with people until it reaches an amazing level. It

is not like a last minute tactical plan to talk to people and get them to vote. If you want to ensure

13

participation you need to keep contact with students all the time.”110 As the following quote suggests,

campus activists are not only promoting ideals in line with their ideology but also behaving as middle-

men or “street level bureaucrats”111 who are ready to assist students – though sometimes reluctantly –

in their mundane personal queries.

Young students, they are confused, you help them. Even the smaller battles give you satisfaction […] JNUSU [JNU Students’ Union] leaders have their own strength in terms of what they do better, someone will be a good speech maker, someone will be good with students on one-to-one basis, some will be good in terms of political sharpness. Someone again will be better at negotiating with the administration […] meeting with professors and getting things done […] in JNU a lot of people come from small villages, from tribal areas, they live with Rs.3000 a month and still send back to their parents. They come with so much fear, lack of confidence in themselves […] You have to be available for them, counsel them, solve their problems, you have to care about people’s sensibilities, all the range of sensibilities […] if you want to say ‘I will represent you’ [...] SL [undergraduates of the School of Languages] kids are the sweetest, because for them you are like didi, bhaia, [i.e. elder sister, brother] you become elder sister, elder brother, you take care of them. (First author interview with a former JNU Student Union president, 2015)

As it appears, campus activists at JNU give away their time and energy in the hope of securing

political loyalties. They do not solely carry out patronage-dispensing acts out of genuine concern and

empathy for student problems. They are also conscious that if they do not deliver, the individual will seek

assistance from rival activists. In this sense, it is possible to spot similar variants of JNU campus activists

elsewhere in Indian politics who assume the role of an intermediary. Such brokers are central to how

Indian democracy operates,112 and the democratic space of JNU is no exception to this general pattern.

As Piliavsky and Berenschot identify,113 patron-client relationships in the South Asian context are not only

a matter of redistributing resources, they are also a rhetorical act that convey largesse as a politician’s

virtue.

As supported by the two quotes that follow, clientelist features of student politics at JNU provide

crucial mechanisms for recruiting new members as well as for building connections at the individual level,

thus activating the process of political socialization. A student activist who has held offices in a political

organization reveals his process of stepping into student politics: “I got involved in JNU politics for petty

reasons. I wanted to shift to Narmada [hostel name] and leave the cranky room in Mahi Mandavi. The

14

AISA114 activist helped me to do that, and through prolonged discussion I got into politics.”115 This

suggests a complex political socialization process that is beyond traditional patron-client relationships

based on receiving benefits in exchange for giving loyalty.

Political groups at JNU are successful in recruiting new committed members through creating ties

of solidarity and friendship with the younger generation. Socialization, in this sense, plays a crucial role

in the formation of a collective identity and the progressive familiarization of the newcomer into the

group.116 The enlarged group would campaign in teams, enjoy free time together, drink alcohol in the

secrecy of a comrade’s room and even get high under the same tree on the day of Holi (festival).

A second ‘socialization moment’ entailing practices of micro-politics is tied to the practice of

“room sheltering.” Because of the rapid expansion of the number of students in the past decade, the

amount of free spaces available in the 17 hostels of the campus is increasingly insufficient to host all the

new incomers. Many freshers therefore end up in the rooms of activists who generously offer them some

space where they can stay until they are allotted a hostel room.

One SFI senior was sheltering two freshers in his room. They were becoming sympathizers slowly, slowly. But he was not setting an example. He was ordering pizza every day instead of going to the mess and meeting common students, interacting […] So, in addition of being elitist he was not relating to students in his own hostel […] and then he wanted the unit to win student elections! […] AISA on the other hand will ask you what you like, your favorite poems, your family situation. They take you for chai, “Oh you read Neruda?” […] and then slowly they will connect this with larger ideological issues […] If you want to be a serious activist in JNU, you need to know at least 2,000 people, not only their name, but everything about their life […] Being an activist in JNU entails personal sacrifices, abandoning one’s private life in order to be available for students all the time. As I told you, the classic strategy is to offer a room to freshers […] and this is what I did, four people for so many months, it was horrible. [These sacrifices] show your sincerity to politics, and this is what people vote for. All these things are linked […] when you are not visible, you connect less […] and ultimately you are less comfortable with public speaking. Because AISA were more hard-working, dedicated […] because of that they were more prepared for public speaking. (First author interview with a former activist, 2016)

At the beginning of the academic year, an activist can shelter up to four new students. This

situation usually lasts for months and provides an influential space for personal discussions on political

matters. Student leaders introduce their value system to the new arrivals and encourage them to

participate in public events. Only after his first week at JNU, Akhil, a newcomer student staying in the

15

room of a senior activist, declared to the ethnographer that “we are having a protest at bloc this

afternoon.” Akhil’s choice of the word “we” shows how he has already identified himself as a member of

a politically active group. Later in the month, the ethnographer would meet the fresher Sunil near

Godawari tea stall. Sunil would confess that it was his first time ever putting a political poster of AISA on

a wall. Later on, the ethnographer would meet him several times in the hostel room of a dynamic cadre

of the same organization, where he stays with three other new students. Socialization, once again, acts

as a vehicle of politics and vice-versa.

Campus appears here as a safe territory117 in which JNU students are exposed to new political

languages and understandings of society.118 Freshers are invited to loci amoeni and havens;119 these

pleasant closed spaces enable individuals to express their personality and to learn the political line of the

organization through loosely structured face-to-face discussions with affiliated seniors. The setting is

formally non-hierarchical but the authority of the senior prevails and the junior learns quickly the specific

knowledge and the lexicon legitimizing the political credos of a specific organization. Respondents very

often refer to influential political activists as elder brothers or sisters when they are asked to recall their

own consciousness-raising process.120 Before concluding the discussion on the centrality of socialization

in fueling politicization in JNU, we turn to the analysis of survey data in order to quantify the phenomenon

at hand.

HOW MUCH MORE POLITICAL? QUANTIFYING POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION AT JNU

As the preceding qualitative discussion suggests, student organizations at JNU generate a process of

political socialization, which is pursued through both patronage relations and sustained interactions with

newcomer students. In this sense, student organizations contribute to the fashioning and the

reproduction of politicized micro-cohorts121 and produce political gains. Overall, one politicized cohort of

senior political activists helps in forging a new one.

The ethnographic part of this study highlights the mechanism but it does not tell how widespread

the political socialization is.122 In other words, is political socialization experienced only by a small

16

proportion of JNU students or is it a broad phenomenon? If this mechanism is widespread among JNU

students, then we should be able to observe differences among students based on how long they have

been exposed to the JNU environment. Similarly, students who reside on campus are more exposed to

the political environment at JNU than those who reside off-campus. As a result, on-campus residents

should have a higher level of politicization than students living off-campus. Following this line of thought,

we formulate and test the validity of four hypotheses based on the ethnographic study.

Hypothesis 1 Exposure to the JNU campus makes a student more likely to self-place herself in a

radical position on the left-right political spectrum.

Hypothesis 2 Students who have been studying longer at JNU are more likely to become

members of a political organization.

Hypothesis 3 The longer a student has been studying in JNU, the higher the likelihood that she

participates in political events.

Hypothesis 4 Students who are living on campus are more susceptible to politicization than those

who reside off-campus.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We are interested in the effects of continued exposure to the JNU campus on the political attitudes of

students. In this sense, our treatment is exposure to the JNU campus. One possible approach is to

compare political attitudes of JNU students with non-JNU students or the larger population. However,

such an approach essentially introduces empirical problems because the treatment is dependent on

enrollment at JNU, which is not randomly assigned. In such an empirical design, students would have self-

placed themselves in the treatment group by choosing to enroll at JNU.

As conventional wisdom and our previous fieldwork suggests, some students join or refrain from

enrolling at JNU precisely because of the political environment at JNU. To circumvent this selection

problem, we limit our population to JNU students and compare JNU students with other JNU students.

Our treatment, exposure to the JNU campus, is measured as time spent at JNU, in terms of semesters.

17

We expect that those JNU students who have spent more academic semesters at JNU are more likely to

become politicized.

Our theoretical expectations are tested on a survey carried out in the JNU campus over six weeks

in the first semester of the 2014-15 academic year. It was conducted by the first author and all of the

respondents were JNU students. Although the medium of education in JNU is English, a simple English

language was adopted to ensure that comprehension was not an issue. The questionnaire was restricted

to a single (double-sided) page in order to encourage participation by keeping the questionnaire short. It

consisted of 15 structured and two open-ended questions. Respondents were briefed and it was

emphasized that all responses were strictly anonymous. The questionnaire was filled by the respondent

and placed in an opaque ballot box.

The questionnaire was distributed in every student hall on campus. In addition, over six weeks

during the first semester of the academic year 2014-15, five visits to four types of locations were made;

(1) all the university libraries, (2) all the 15 university buildings where teaching takes place, (3) all the

school canteens, (4) the main squares/forecourts and vicinities of on-campus tea stalls. A time-slot was

randomly assigned (in terms of the day of the week and time, considering only teaching hours) for a visit

to a location. In addition, a more specific locality was randomly assigned if the location was a large

building such as a main library or teaching center. For example, we visited teaching building A and

delivered questionnaires on Tuesday at 10 am in the classrooms located on the second floor.

Outcome Variables

1- Self-Placement on the Political Spectrum

We rely on a question in our survey that asks respondents to self-place themselves on the left-right

political spectrum. The respective survey question is depicted in Table 3.

[Table 3]

18

Based on this question, we create two outcome variables for testing our first hypothesis. Our

strategy is depicted in Table 4. First, a binary variable labeled Radical takes a true value for students who

placed themselves on 1-3 or 8-10 and false otherwise. Second, we create an ordinal variable, called

Radicalization, which measures how far the respondent is from the center. We define answers 5 and 6 as

the center of the political spectrum. Accordingly, answers 4 and 7 are considered relative centrist; 3 and

8 are relative radical; 2 and 9 are radicals; 1 and 10 are extreme radicals. We consider those who respond

as “Don’t know/No opinion” as non-radical and non-political. However, excluding these responses from

the analysis does not change our results, as shown in the appendix.

[Table 4]

2- Membership in a Political organization

We propose that exposure to the JNU campus makes a student more likely to become a member of a

political organization. In order to test this hypothesis, we rely on a question in the survey that asks

respondents whether they are a member of a political organization or not. We build the outcome variable

Membership based on this question.

3- Participation in Political Events

Our final hypothesis proposes that exposure to the JNU campus makes students more likely to participate

in political events. In order to test this hypothesis, we rely on three questions in the survey that ask

participants how frequently they participate in, donate to and organize political events. Based on these

questions, we build an ordinal variable labeled Participation that categorizes the level of participation.

The five categories of Participation are depicted in Table 5.

[Table 5]

19

Main Explanatory Variables

Our main explanatory variable is exposure to the JNU campus, which is measured in semesters of study

as a JNU student. We present our results in number of semesters for easier interpretation, but different

functional forms for study time, including natural log or a quadratic term do not change our results. As

some postgraduate students spend more semesters at JNU, distribution of this variable is highly skewed.

There are a few outliers (2.25 percent of the respondents) who spent more than 12 semesters at JNU.

Dropping or including these respondents do not change our results in a meaningful way. We illustrate our

results with these outliers lumped at the value 13 for the semester of study. The number of students in

their odd semesters is also considerably higher than students in their even semesters (irregular students)

because the survey was conducted in the first semester of an academic year. In order to make sure that

this imbalance does not introduce estimation problems, we also considered academic years of study.

Again, our results do not change whether we measure academic years of study or semesters of study. We

present the models with alternative measures for study time in the online appendix.

Our ethnographic study suggests that on-campus dormitories are hotbeds for political

socialization. We have asked students whether they are living on-campus in student accommodation or

residing outside the campus. Based on this question in our survey, we generate the variable hostel, which

captures the residential status of the student.

Control Variables

There is no recent quantitative study on campus politics in India. The last ones are the works of Pattnaik

and Hazary,123 who followed the legacy of previous surveys on Indian university students.124 This tradition

investigated the background of politically active students, their political attitudes and their organizational

affiliation. Unfortunately, this literature does not provide an established baseline model to follow as it

did not examine the impact of the university campus on political identities and participation. However,

considering our experience of Indian campus politics we introduce several control variables that have the

potential to influence political attitudes.

20

First, we consider the class of the respondent as potentially influential. We have several questions

in the survey that can be used as a proxy for class. As these indicators provide similar results, we only

present the level of education of the respondent’s guardian/parent. Second, we control for meta-castes

– i.e. conglomerates of different jatis (castes) – by using the category of admission as a proxy.125 We

consider three main admission categories; general (non-reserved), OBC (Other Backward Classes) and

SC/ST (Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe). In the Indian context, caste does not necessarily overlap with

class or income, and it is imperative to differentiate social and economic stigmas.126 Third, we control for

whether the respondent’s guardian resides in urban, sub-urban or rural areas. Fourth, we control for

gender because gender can have an influence on political behavior. In line with other Indian scholarship,

we strongly suspect that being female may have a negative impact on participation and membership.

Fifth, the birthplace of the respondent is taken into account. We have clustered responses into seven

categories; Northern states127 (excluding the capital), Delhi NCR, West Bengal, Southern states,128 North

East,129 Jammu and Kashmir and abroad.130 Sixth, we control for school of enrollment because the JNU

campus might offer different experiences to students with different majors.

We acknowledge years of education and age as possible confounding variables. In our view,

neither age nor years of education necessarily positively affect the likelihood of being a political radical,

membership to a political organization, or participation in political events. Nevertheless, we include the

degree of enrollment variable (undergraduate, master’s level or MPhil/PhD) to capture the effect of years

of education. Finally, we add religious beliefs in some of our models. Interpretation of this variable should

be performed with caution because it is likely to introduce post-treatment bias; exposure to JNU might

influence religious views. We also control for age as a robustness check to see whether any impact we

might find would be washed away with the introduction of age. Our results substantively remain the same

when we control for age (see the appendix).

21

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive statistics of the variables of interest are provided in Table 6. The main explanatory variable,

the semester of study at JNU, ranges from 1 to 13 with a mean of 3.35 (the academic year is divided into

two semesters). The variable is skewed to the left, which is compatible with the student population of

JNU. Membership to a political organization is at 23 percent, and 44 percent of respondents place

themselves on a radical position in the political spectrum. As many of our variables are categorical,

summary statistics are not interpretable for all of the variables. We provide histograms for each variable

in the appendix in order to illustrate how the variables are distributed.

[Table 6]

Political Radicalization

As the first step for the empirical analysis, we test the hypothesis proposing that more time spent as a

JNU student increases the likelihood of political radicalization. We use logistic regression on the binary

variable Radical. We present our full model in Table 7. We estimate that the average marginal effect of

every additional semester at JNU on the likelihood of self-placement at a radical position on the political

spectrum is 2.0 percentage points. In other words, every additional semester spent at JNU is associated

with 2.0 percentage points increase in the likelihood of perceiving oneself as radical on average. This

result suggests that a student who has spent 4 academic years at JNU is 16.0 percentage points more

likely to self-place herself at a radical position on the political spectrum than a student in her first

semester at JNU.

[Table 7]

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between semesters as a JNU student and likelihood of radical

self-placement. As semesters of study at JNU increase, the probability of drifting from ‘centrist’ positions

increases. The average marginal effect of on-campus accommodation on being in the radical category is

22

0.21, which is consistent with our expectations. To better illustrate this effect, the average of the

predicted probability of being in the radical category is 0.36, according to our model. Had no student

stayed in a hostel, the predicted probability is 0.18. Had everyone stayed in a hostel, the predicted

probability is 0.39. The change of probability from 0.18 to 0.39 (0.39 – 0.18 = 0.21) is the estimated effect

of on-campus residence. We present the model in which we included our explanatory variables without

an interaction term but the introduction of an interaction term yields the same substantive results. An

interaction term between Semester of Study and Hostel would assume that students who are residing in

campus accommodations in the first term of the 2014-2015 academic year have also been living on-

campus throughout their education at JNU. This might be unlikely but even if we make this assumption,

our results stay the same substantively.

Figure 1: The relationship between predicted probability of being in the radical category and the variables of interest

23

We do not find a statistically significant effect for parent’s study level, gender, caste (proxied by

admission criteria), level of study (undergraduate/postgraduate). Compared to respondents coming from

an urban background, respondents with a rural origin are more likely to self-place themselves at a radical

position.

Thus, it appears that self-perceived radicalization at JNU is an all-encompassing phenomenon

regardless of caste, gender and school of enrollment. Nevertheless, students from rural backgrounds are

more likely to radicalize than other sections of the student population. It is commonly accepted that

students from upper classes have higher chances of having an urban background.131 It is therefore

reasonable to expect that “urban elites” are less likely to radicalize compared to other sections of the

JNU population.

Atheists are 26 percentage points more likely to be politically radical compared to Hindus but we

do not consider a causal link between the two variables because it is quite plausible that there is a

common cause for both self-placing in left fringes of the political spectrum and defining oneself as atheist.

There are also differences in terms of school type; School of Social Sciences (SSS) students are more likely

to perceive themselves as radicals than School of International Studies (SIS) and Combined Schools (CS)

students. Foreign students are less likely to be radical than any other type of admission students.

The effect of time spent as a JNU student remains robust to different model specifications. Even

when we control for age, the effect of time spent at JNU remains positive and statistically significant.

When we move towards different restricted models, the number of semesters at JNU remains always

positive and statistically significant. We only present results for our selected model in Table 7 because we

consider this model as the most theoretically informed way of modelling the data generation process in

our case. The model also performs best in comparison with alternative ones in terms of AIC and BIC

criteria. However, the full model leads to a substantial decline in number of observations due to listwise

deletion of missing observations. Consequently, it causes wider confidence intervals even though the

estimated coefficients and marginal effects do not change substantially. Restricted models return similar

predicted probabilities for being a radical when we consider the effect of semesters of study but with

24

considerably shorter confidence intervals than presented in Figure 1. For alternative model specifications

and unrestricted models, please see the additional online appendix.

[Table 8]

Next, we measure our dependent variable, political radicalization, as an ordinal variable (see

Table 4). Higher numbers in the radicalization variable show higher distance from the center of the

political spectrum. We use the same model specification strategy. These results are in line with the

previous results for dichotomous measurement of radicalization. The coefficient for semesters of study

at JNU is positive and statistically significant (p<0.01) (see Table 8). The average marginal effect of

variables of interest are presented at Table 9. The predicted probability of being in the Full Centrist

category is around 0.33 for students who have started their first semester at JNU, but it substantially

drops as the semesters of study increase. For students who have spent 8 semesters at JNU, the predicted

probability of being in the Full Centrist category drops to 0.26.

As a student spends more and more semesters at JNU, his or her probability of being in the

‘Extreme Radical’ category increases. The predicted probability of being in the Extreme Radical category

is 0.07 for those who are in their first semester at JNU. This probability increases to 0.12 after spending

8 semesters. Students who reside on-campus, on average, are more likely to be in a more radical category.

Overall, statistical analysis suggests strong support for our first hypothesis; exposure to the JNU campus

is associated with an increased likelihood of political radicalization.

[Table 9]

Membership to a Political Organization

We claim that exposure to the JNU campus increases the likelihood of membership to a political

organization. This hypothesis is tested using the dichotomous Membership variable, which records

whether the respondent is a member of a political organization. We use the same model specification as

25

we think that this specification is the most theoretically informed one. The result for logistic regression

on Membership is presented in Table 10. We estimate the average marginal effect of every additional

semester at JNU on the likelihood of membership to a political organization as 0.02. Similarly, residing in

on-campus accommodation increases the probability of being a member of a political organization by

0.13, on average. Again, results are robust to different model specifications. Even controlling for age does

not substantially change this result, as our main explanatory variable remains positive and statistically

significant.

We find no relationship between membership to a political organization and caste, parent’s level

of study, gender, urban/rural background, and degree of enrollment. There is no difference between

enrollment in SSS, SIS and SL in terms of the likelihood of affiliation to a political organization, but students

of CS are less likely to become members of a political organization compared to SSS and SL.

[Table 10]

The limited affiliation levels of CS students might be partly because of the remote location of

their academic buildings within the JNU campus, which reduces exposure to the political environment of

the campus. Atheists and Muslims are more likely to be affiliated to an organization than Hindus.

Additionally, students from the North East (i.e. the eastern-most region of India) are less likely to be

politically affiliated than those who were born in the rest of North India. This probably indicates a lack of

social integration to broader political activities in the JNU campus.

It should be noted that the statistical model is likely to overestimate the true effect of exposure

to the JNU campus on membership to a political organization because students might be less likely to

become a member of any organization when they have recently settled for their studies. Only after

spending some time, students make social connections, which might influence their likelihood of

membership to any social association. In addition, students who become members of a political

organization may also become more likely to prefer staying at JNU for further study (e.g. post-graduate

26

study) due to their close social ties at JNU. Such a censoring mechanism may also contribute to the

generation of the data we observe.

Overall, the statistical result on membership is far from conclusive. We acknowledge that this

model does not uncover a causal link between exposure to the JNU campus and membership to a political

organization in itself. However, coupled with the ethnographic study and our other statistical inference,

the model on membership to a political organization paints a more complete picture. This result is in line

with our other empirical findings and it fits very well into the general framework provided by the

ethnographic study.

Participation in Political Events

We hypothesize that exposure to the JNU campus increases the frequency of participation in political

events. We test this hypothesis through ordinal logit on the Participation variable, which categorizes

respondents into five categories from no participation to always/daily participation. The results are

presented in Table 11. Our main explanatory variables, semesters at JNU and residence on campus, are

positive and significant (p<0.01), suggesting that participation in political events become more likely as a

student is more exposed to the JNU campus. Again, this finding is robust to different model specifications,

including controlling for respondents’ age (see Table 12).

[Table 11]

[Table 12]

We do not find any evidence that admission status influences participation in political events.

Similarly, we find no effect for parent’s study level and the degree of enrollment.132 Females however are

considerably less likely to participate in political events. On average, the predicted probability of being in

the highest two participation categories is 0.12 lower for females than males. This result also fits well

with the established literature on gender and politics in India, which highlights the gender bias in Indian

27

politics.133 Respondents from rural and sub-urban backgrounds are more likely to participate in political

events compared to respondents with an urban background. Students enrolled in CS are less likely to

participate in political events than students of SSS but we do not find any difference between SSS and SIS

and between SSS and SL. Those who identified themselves as atheists are more likely to participate than

Hindus, which is compatible with our results regarding political radicalization. A negative coefficient

suggests that Muslims are less likely to participate than Hindus but the result is statistically insignificant.

Our results suggest that birthplace of the respondent is not very influential on the frequency of

participation.

Figure 2: The relationship between frequency of political participation and semesters of study at JNU

28

CONCLUSION

We have argued that continuous interactions between political activists and newcomer students across

JNU student communities do prompt a political socialization process in which newcomer students

become more and more politicized, if not themselves versed in political activism. The recent broad-based

mobilization of students in JNU after the arrest – on charges of sedition – of the Students’ Union President

and two other student activists,134 can be seen in line with the finding of this article. Further research will

assess whether peer-to-peer value-based politicization of youth is found pervasive in other premium

universities, as suggested by the recent occurrence of several campus-based mobilizations – i.e. the

Hokkolorob movement,135 ‘FTII protest’,136 Rohith Vemula agitation137 and various anti-moral policing

initiatives around the country.138

As an interrelated finding, our analysis indicates that while campus politics is mainly informed by

dynamics of social relations, the latter are not chiefly manifested in the assertion of caste and class

identities. This result contrasts with most political accounts of educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh,139

Tamil Nadu,140 and across India in general in which the relevance of caste identities and caste-based

politics is far from obsolete. Such a result does not mean however that these identities are unimportant

parameters, irrelevant to the political grammar of student organizations in JNU. For instance, fieldwork

evidence suggests that caste is one of the factors determining the selection of candidates for student

elections. It also orients to a certain extent the content of campaigning political messages addressed to

individual students.

Nevertheless, the article indicates that activist groups are capable of drawing students from

different horizons into politics – even though students from elite backgrounds show less interest in

political participation. While caste is not a crucial explanatory factor driving youth political participation

in JNU, caste identities presumably remain important as students’ political commitments are understood

and negotiated differently according to one’s background. Significantly, student politics on campus is led

by a section of the student population member of political organizations that are regional in their

composition and affiliated to broader Indian parties.

29

One limitation of our study is worth underlining; our empirical results are based on a single case

study. Although JNU is a crucial case as a flagship university and a standard bearer of student politics in

India, we caution the reader not to hastily generalize our findings beyond the context of JNU at this stage

of research.141 What is needed are cross-case studies that exploit variations at the subnational level, while

assessing both the contributions of elite and non-elite universities in the shaping of political values and

activist careers. Further research would also benefit from adopting a longitudinal approach. Following

participants over several years, especially after graduation and into adulthood, would enable us to see

whether political socialization has a lasting effect.

Keeping these two limitations in mind, we suggest that the originality of the paper is twofold.

First, JNU presents a “most likely case” within which political socialization is not drawn along caste and

class lines. Such socialization, based on the passing down of political knowledge from older activist

cohorts to younger ones, overrides in part caste and class alignments by drawing into politics students

who have inherited different parental political views and are from eclectic socio-economic backgrounds.

As these are the factors that are overwhelmingly emphasized by the extant literature on youth politics in

India, we appear to present a valuable counterpoint to the dominant understanding.

Second, this is the first attempt to measure the effect of campus presence on reshaping one’s

political identity in the Indian context. We consider this research endeavor as a necessary step to situate

Indian student politics on the global map of studies on youth politics. While interrogating some commonly

accepted patterns of Indian youth politics, the article shows that the case of JNU student politicization

conforms to the causal framework described in the wider literature, namely that elite institutions in the

social sciences tend to favor the emergence of political activism.

1 We refer particularly to three studies here. See Third Round of the Youth Survey, Attitudes, Anxieties and

Aspirations of India’s Youth: Changing Patterns (Report Conducted by the Centre for the Study Developing Societies

and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2017). See also Kumar, Sanjay, eds., Indian Youth and Electoral Politics: An

Emerging Engagement (New Delhi: SAGE, 2014). Finally, see D’Souza, Peter Ronald, Kumar, Sanjay and Shastri,

Sandeep, eds., Indian youth in a Transforming World: Attitudes and Perceptions (New Delhi: SAGE, 2009).

2 According to JNU Annual Report (2014), for the academic year 2014, 4,846 students were doing research, 2,245

were pursuing post-graduate studies (i.e. M.A./ M.Sc./ MCA), 861 were pursuing under-graduate studies and 109

30

part-time undergraduate level studies. The Annual Report of the University Grant Commission (2015) indicates that

JNU is one of the 46 central universities (e.g. funded by the central government) in the country and that the medium

of education is English.

3 Jaime Settle, Christopher Dawes and James Fowler, “The Heritability of Partisan Attachment,” Political Research

Quarterly Vol.62, No.3 (2009), pp.601-13.

4 See p.132, Ronald Inglehart, “Changing Values Among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006,” West European

Politics 31 Vol.1-2, No.1 (2008), pp.130-46.

5 Tor Førland, Trine Korsvik and Knut-Andreas Christophersen. “Brought Up to Rebel in the Sixties: Birth Order

Irrelevant, Parental Worldview Decisive,” Political Sociology Vol.33, No.6 (2012), pp. 825-38. Daniela Barni et al.

“Multiple Sources of Adolescents’ Conservative Values: A Multilevel Study,” European Journal of Developmental

Psychology Vol.11, No.4 (2014), pp.433-46.

6 Laura Stoker and Kent Jennings. “Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization,” American Journal of

Political Science Vol.52, No.3 (2008), pp.619-35. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Richard Nadeau, and Angelo Elias.

“Economics, Party, and the Vote: Causality Issues and Panel Data,” American Journal of Political Science Vol.52

No. 1 (2008), pp.84-95.

7 Annick Percheron, Nonna Mayer, and Anne Muxel. La Socialisation Politique (Paris: Armand Colin, 1993).

8 Peter Hatemi et al. “Genetic and Environmental Transmission of Political Attitudes Over a Life Time,” The Journal

of Politics Vol.71 No.3 (2009), pp.1141-56. PJ Henry and David O. Sears. “The Crystallization of Contemporary

Racial Prejudice Across the Lifespan,” Political Psychology Vol.30, No.4 (2009), pp.569-90. Arnold Ho et al. “Social

Dominance Orientation Revisiting the Structure and Function of a Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes,”

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Vol.38, No.5 (2012), pp.583-606.

9 Kent Jennings and Richard Niemi. Generations and Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). Fillieule,

Olivier. “Political Socialization and Social Movements,” in Encyclopaedia of Social and Political Movements (New

York: Blackwell Publishing, 2013).

10 In the work of Karl Mannheim, the term Lagerung refers to the social location of a generation. See “The Problem

of Generations” in his Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1972 [1928]), pp.276-322.

11 Kent Jennings, “Generation Units and the Student Protest Movement in the United States: An Intra and

Intergenerational Analysis,” Political Psychology Vol.23, No.2 (2002), pp.303-24.

12 Annick Percheron, “La mémoire des générations: La Guerre d’Algérie-Mai 68,” in La Socialisation politique (Paris,

Armand Colin, 1993), pp.39-55.

13 Robert Erikson, and Laura Stoker. “Caught in the Draft: The Effects of Vietnam Draft Lottery Status on Political

Attitudes,” The American Political Science Review Vol.105, No.2 (2011), pp.221-37.

14 Anne Muxel, “Youth and Politics: Towards a New Model of Citizenship in Advanced Democracies,” in

Perspectives on Youth: Connections and Disconnections. Volume 2. (Brussels: Council of Europe, 2015).

15 Annick Percheron, L’Univers Politique des Enfants (Paris: Armand Colin, 1974).

16 Annick Percheron, “L’Ecole En Porte à Faux. Réalités et Limites Des Pouvoirs De l’Ecole Dans La Socialisation

Politique,” Pouvoirs No.30 (1984), pp.15-28.

17 Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Countries

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).

18 Annick Percheron and Françoise Bonnal. 10-16 Ans Et La Politique (Paris: Presses de la FNSP, 1978).

19 Eric Dey, “Undergraduate Political Attitudes: An Examination of Peer, Faculty, and Social Influences,” Research

in Higher Education Vol. 37, No. 5 (1996), pp.535-54.

31

20 Francesca Polletta, Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2012)

21 Nicholas Bowman, “How Much Diversity is Enough? The Curvilinear Relationship Between College Diversity

Interactions and First-Year Student Outcomes,” Research in Higher Education Vol.54 No.8 (2013), pp.874-94.

22 Aina Gallego et al. “Places and Preferences: A Longitudinal Analysis of Self-Selection and Contextual Effects,”

British Journal of Political Science Vol.46 No.3 (2014), pp.1-22.

23 Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie. Putting Voters in their Place: Geography and Elections in Great Britain (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2006).

24 Ulrich Beck, Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences (London:

SAGE, 2002).

25 Beck, Individualization.

26 Jack Goldstone and Doug McAdam. “Contention in Demographic and Life-Course Context,” in Aminzade et al.

Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics (Cambridge Publishing Online, 2001), pp.195-221.

27 Nancy Whittier, The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse: Emotion, Social Movements, and the State (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2009).

28 Marco Giugni and Maria Grasso, “Environmental Movements in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Heterogeneity,

Transformation, and Institutionalization,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol.40, (2015), pp.337-

361.

29 Kathleen Blee, “Three Personal Effects from Far-Right Activism,” in Lorenzo Bosi, et al., The Consequences of

Social Movements (Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp.66-84.

30 Darren Sherkat and Jean Blocker. “Explaining the Political and Personal Consequences of Protest,” Vol.75 No.3

(1997), pp.1049-70.

31 Devashree Gupta, “The Power of Incremental Outcomes: How Small Victories and Defeats Affect Social

Movement Organizations,” Vol.14, No.4 (2009), pp.417-32.

32 Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970 (Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press, 1999 [1982]).

33 Marco Giugni, “Personal and Biographical Consequences,” in Snow, David et al. The Blackwell Companion to

Social Movements (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).

34 Nancy Whittier, “Political Generations, Micro-Cohorts, and the Transformation of Social Movements,” American

Sociological Review Vol.62, No.5 (1997), pp.760-78.

35 John Levine and Moreland Richard, “Group Socialization: Theory and Research,” European Review of Social

Psychology Vol.5, No.1 (1994), pp.305-36.

36 Olivier Fillieule, Propositions pour une Analyse Processuelle de l’Engagement Individuel (Paris: FNSP, 2001).

37 Mary Bucholtz, “Youth and cultural practice,” Annual Review of Anthropology Vol.31 (2002), pp.525-552.

38 See p.184, Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, Trans. Richard Nice (Stanford University Press, 1990 [1980]).

39 Alfred Schütz, “The Stranger,” Collected Papers II (Springer, 1976), pp.91-105.

40 Roberta Sigel, “Conclusion: Adult Political Learning – A Lifelong Process,” in Roberta Sigel, Political Learning

in Adulthood (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1989), pp.458-70. Penny Visser and Jon Krosnick, “Development

of Attitude Strength Over the Life Cycle: Surge and Decline,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 75,

No. 6 (1998).

32

41 MP Rege, “Inter-Generational Conflict: A Theoretical Perspective,” in M. Sinha and Kesharichand Gangrade, Inter-

Generational Conflict in India (Nachiketa Publications, 1971). Laxmi Singhvi, Youth Unrest: Conflict of Generations

(Delhi: National Publishing House, 1972).

42 MP Sinha and Kesharichand Gangrade, Inter-Generational Conflict in India (Nachiketa Publications, 1971). Malik,

Yogendra and Jesse Marquette. “Changing Social Values of College Students in the Punjab,” Asian Survey Vol.14,

No.9 (1974), pp.795-806.

43 Edward Singh, “Indian Students: Rather Sadhus than Philistines,” in Turmoil and Transition: Higher Education

and Student Politics in India (Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House, 1968). Joseph Di Bona, “Indiscipline and Student

Leadership in an Indian University,” Comparative Education Review Vol.10, No.2 (1966), pp.306-19. Sagar

Ahluwalia, Youth in Revolt (New Delhi: Young Asia Publications, 1972).

44 Shah, Ghanshyam. Social Movements in India: A Review of Literature (SAGE Publications India, 2004).

45 Muni Reddy, The Student Movement in India (Lucknow: K.S.R. Acharya, 1947). Philip Altbach, The Student

Revolution: A Global Analysis (Lalvani Pub. House, 1970). TK. Oommen, “Student Politics in India: The Case of

Delhi University,” Asian Survey Vol.14, No.9 (1974), pp.777-94. L.P. Vidyarthi, The Dynamics of Tribal Leadership

in Bihar. (Kolkata: Punthic Fustak, 1976).

46 Humayun Kabir, Student Unrest: Causes and Cure (Orient Book Company, 1958). S.G. Sardesai, Student Upsurge

and Indian Revolution (Delhi House, 1974). V. Gopalakrishnayya, Student Unrest (Nehru Memorial and Museum

Library, 1974).

47 Philip Altbach, “Student Politics and Higher Education in India,” Daedalus, Vol.97, No.1 (1968), pp.254-273.

Prayag Mehta, The Indian Youth: Emerging Problems and Issues (New Delhi: Somaiya Publications, 1971).

Vidyarthi, Leadership in Bihar. Suneet Chopra, “Political Consciousness of the Student Movement in India,” Social

Scientist, Vol.6, No.10 (1978), pp. 53-68.

48 Prabodh Chandra, Student Movement in India (Lahore: All-India Students’ Federation, 1938) pp.54-5. Reddy, The

Student Movement. Anil Rajimwale, History of Student Movement in India (New Delhi: South Asia Books, 2001).

49 Pamela Price, and Arild Ruud. Power and Influence in India: Bosses, Lords and Captains (London: Routledge,

2012).

50 Barbara Harriss-White, India Working: Essays on Society and Economy (Cambridge University Press No.8, 2003).

Leela Fernandes and Patrick Heller. “Hegemonic Aspirations: New Middle Class Politics and India’s Democracy in

Comparative Perspective,” Critical Asian Studies No.38, Vol.4 (2006), pp.495-522.

51 Anastasia Piliavsky, Patronage as Politics in South Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

52 TK Oommen, “Student Politics,” Sinha, Durgananda. “Dimensions of Student Agitations in India,” Journal of

Social Economic Studies Vol.3, No.3 (1975).

53 Kabir, Student Unrest. Margaret Cormack, She who Rides a Peacock: Indian Students and Social Change, a

Research Analysis (Asia publishing house, 1961). Di Bona “Indiscipline and Student Leadership,” in Joseph Gusfield,

Protest, Reform, and Revolt: A Reader in Social Movements (Wiley, 1970). Singh, Amar K. “Academic Politics and

Student Unrest: The Case of Ranchi University,” in Altbach, Philip Turmoil and Transition: Higher Education and

Student Politics in India (Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House, 1968). Ross, Aileen D. Student Unrest in India: A

Comparative Approach (McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, 1969). Vidyarthi, L.P. The Student Unrest in Chotanagpur

(Ranchi: Punthi Pustak, 1976).

54 Craig Jeffrey. “Contradictory Youth Politics: Student Mobilisation in Uttar Pradesh,” in Pamela Price and Arild

Ruud. Power and Influence in India: Bosses, Lords and Captains (London: Routledge, 2012).

33

55 Amanda Snellinger, Transfiguration of the Political: Nepali Student Activism and the Politics of Acculturation

(PhD thesis, Cornell University, 2010). Arild Ruud. “The Political Bully in Bangladesh,” in Piliavsky, Patronage as

Politics, pp.303-25.

56 Author interview, 2015.

57 D’Souza, Rohan. “Some Reflections on Democracy and JNUSU,” in 30 Years in Defence of Progressive

Democratic and Secular Culture (New Delhi: JNUSU Document, Unpublished, 2004).

58 Kenneth Bo Nielsen, “‘An Activist can’t Become a Politician’: Social Activism, Leadership and the (Un)making

of a Political Career in an Indian State,” Contemporary South Asia Vol.20, No.4 (2001), pp.435-453.

59 Ruud Engelsen, “Talking dirty about politics: A view from a Bengali village,” in Chris Fuller and Véronique Bénéï,

eds., The Everyday State and Society in Modern India (London: Hurst, 2001).

60 Lloyd Rudolph, In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State (University of Chicago Press,

1987).

61 Examples of such documents are: “Student Front: Policy and Tasks,” The Marxist, Vol.23, No.1 (Adopted by the

Central Committee [of the CPI(M)], January to March, 2007). “Urban Perspective Plan 2004 of the CPI(Maoist),” in

Sudeep Chakravarti, Red Sun, Travels in Naxalite Country (Penguin Global, 2008), Appendix. “Resolution on The

Tasks and Orientation of the Student-Youth Movement,” Liberation (Adopted by the 9th Congress of the CPI(ML),

May 2013).

62 D’Souza, “Some Reflections.”

63 Chopra. “Political Consciousness.”

64 MR Masani, “India’s Second Revolution,” Asian Affairs Vol.5, No.1 (1977), pp. 19-38. Print.

65 Sumanta Banerjee, India’s Simmering Revolution: The Naxalite Uprising (London: Zed Books, 1984). Prakash

Singh, The Naxalite Movement in India (New Delhi: Rupa, 1995).

66 Indian student radicalism has not always been left-leaning, and disruption against the political order was at times

conservative in nature. The decision of quotas for OBCs by the government-led Mandal commission resulted in

riotous demonstration in the late 1980s (a) and again in 2006-7 when implemented to higher education institutions.

In the same decade (1979-1985), a large ethno-cultural movement in Assam led by the AASU (All Assam Students

Union) advocated for the detection and the eviction of Bangladeshi immigrants from the state and the granting of

greater autonomy (b). Hindu students were also key players in pogroms against Muslims in the 1980s onwards as

well as anti-Dalit attacks, especially in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (c). Political challenges posed by youth can arise at

a smaller scale. In the only consistent ethnography on student youth in India, Jeffrey argues that political activists in

Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) – often originating from middle caste and middle-class background – label themselves

political entrepreneurs in order to escape boredom and critique the local state rather than integrating it (d). See (a)

Kandalla Balagopal, “Post Chundur and Other Chundurs,” Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 26, No. 42 (Oct. 19,

1991). (b) Sheila Bora, Student Revolution in Assam, 1917-1947: A Historical Survey (Mittal Publication, 1992). AC

Sinha, AC, Youth Movement in North-East India (New Delhi: Har-Anand, 1995). Apurba Baruah, “Approaches to

the Study of Student Movements in North-East India.” in Apurba Baruah, ed., Student Power in North-East India

(Regency Publications, New Delhi, 2002). Kaustubh Deka, Student Movements in Assam (The Hindu Center, Policy

Report 14, 2013). (c) André Beteille, The Backward Classes in Contemporary India (Oxford University Press, 1992).

Gérard Heuzé. Travailler en Inde (Editions de l’Ecole de Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1992). Paul Brass,

Theft of an Idol: Text and Context in the Representation of Collective Violence (Princeton University Press, 1997).

Irfan Engineer, “Struggles of Dangi Adivasis for Livelihood and Land,” Land Reforms in India Performance and

Challenges in Gujarat and Maharashtra (SAGE India, 2002). (d) Craig Jeffrey, Degrees without Freedom?:

Education, Masculinities, and Unemployment in North India (Stanford University Press, 2008). Craig Jeffrey,

34

“Kicking Away the Ladder: Student Politics and the Making of an Indian Middle Class,” Environment and Planning

D Vol.3 No.26 (2008), pp.19-38.

67 Duncan Forrester, “The Madras Anti-Hindi Agitation, 1965: Political Protest and its Effects on Language Policy

in India,” Pacific Affairs, No.39, Vol.1/2 (1966), pp.19-36.

68 MK Ram, “Movement for Telangana State: A Struggle for Autonomy,” Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 42,

No. 2 (January 13-19, 2007).

69 Third Round of the Youth Survey, Attitudes, Anxieties and Aspirations of India’s Youth: Changing Patterns

(Report, Conducted by the Centre for the Study Developing Societies and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2017).

70 This strong parent-child link in political orientation is found in several other studies. See, Elisabeth Gidengil, Hanna

Wass and Maria Valaste, “Political Socialization and Voting: The Parent–Child Link in Turnout,” Political Research

Quarterly, Vol. 69, No.2 (2016), pp.373-383.

71 Kumar, Indian Youth and Electoral Politics.

72 Kinjal Sampat and Jyoti Mishra, “Interest in Politics and Political Participation,” in Sanjay Kumar, ed., Indian

Youth and Electoral Politics: An Emerging Engagement (New Delhi: SAGE, 2014).

73 Craig Jeffrey and John Harriss, “Youth,” Keywords for Modern India (New Delhi: SAGE, 2014).

74 Neil Ketchley and Michael Biggs, “The Educational Contexts of Islamist Activism: Elite Students and Religious

Institutions in Egypt,” Mobilization: An International Quarterly, Vol.22, No.1 (2017). Dingxin Zhao, “Ecologies of

Social Movements: Student Mobilization during the 1989 Prodemocracy Movement in Beijing,” American Journal

of Sociology Vol.103, No.6 (1998), pp.1493-1529.

75 Michael Biggs, “How Protesting Depends on Peers: U.S. Students in the 1960s,” Manuscript submitted for

publication.

76 The Times of India News Service, “Self-reliance Stressed at Nehru Varsity Opening,” The Times of India (15

November, 1969), p. 9.

77 For a detailed historical account of the political leanings of the first generation of administrators and faculty

members at JNU, see Rakesh Batabyal, JNU: The Making of a University (New Delhi: Harper Collins India, 2015).

As his main account (Chapters 1-9) does not focus specifically on student-based political activities at JNU, the article

considers a various range of additional historical sources, in particular political pamphlets and various accounts of

former JNU students. Although Batabyal covers only the period 1971-1983, his contribution proves illuminating.

Particularly, Chapters 10-12 recount the inceptive history of the JNU Students’ Union and its early politicization.

78 The “Emergency” is a period between 1975 and 1977 in which the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi restricted

Parliament powers and curbed civil liberties after Allahabad High Court invalidated her 1971 election at the Lok

Sabha – i.e., the lower house of India’s bicameral Parliament

79 Five pamphlets signed by the collective “The Resistance” from 1975 give evidence of the actions taken by

politicized students against police repression and administrative sanctions imposed to the university. See “Resist the

fascistic terror unitedly,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet, 10 July 1975); “Oppose Chenoy’s Suspension ‘wither the

AISF’,” Pamphlet PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72551, September 1975); “Boycott classes in solidarity with Ashok

Lata Jain,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72578 August 1975); “Boycott classes in protest: 22 August,” PaRChA

Archive (Pamphlet ID-72548, August 1975); “Report of the 22 August strike,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72582,

August 1975). The pamphleteer material can be found on the Pamphlet Repository for Changing Activism (PaRChA),

an online platform of more than 70,000 documents – pamphlets, manifestos, placards, press-statements, news

clippings produced by student organizations at JNU and digitized by the main author since 2014. A view-only version

of the PaRChA project is available here: https://goo.gl/Ol05zv [accessed August 12, 2016]. If an error page is

displayed, cf. mirror sites: https://flic.kr/ps/346V1j; http://bit.ly/2qs3122; www.goo.gl/sF1nwz.

35

80 Suneet Chopra, “Early Community Life and Idea,” in Kanjiv Lochan, ed., JNU: The Years, An Anthology by the

Silver Memoir Committee (New Delhi: Popular Prakashan, 1996).

81 Surendra Pattnaik, Student Politics and Voting Behaviour: A Case Study of Jawaharlal Nehru University (New

Delhi: Concept Publishing Company). See p.38.

82 Mukhia, Harbans “Reminiscences,” in Lochan, JNU: The Years.

83 Bhattarai, Baburam “Academic Pursuit and Revolutionary Activism,” in JNU Souvenirs 2008. See p.48.

84 Aikara, Jacob. Ideological Orientation of Student Activism (Poona: Dastane Ramchandra, 1977).

85 Pattnaik Student Politics and Voting Behaviour.

86 Albeena Shakil, “JNUSU: 2001-02” in 30 Years.

87 Kamal Bhasin, JNU; the Escapist Heaven (Femina, July 1974).

88 Silver Memoir Collective, “JNU: and Introduction” in Lochan, JNU: The Years.

89 Donald Emmerson, Students and Politics in Developing Nations (New York: Praeger, 1968). Pradeep Singh,

“Leadership,” Seminar 176 (1974). Anil Baran, “Secularism and Political Protest: The Case of Banaras Hindu

University (BHU) Students’ Agitation of 1965,” The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol.39, No.4 (1978), pp.620-

33.

90 Philip Altbach. The Student Revolution: A Global Analysis (Lalvani Pub. House, 1970).

91 Reddy, The Student Movement in India. Rajimwale, History of Student Movement.

92 Here we refer mainly to the ‘Hindutva-inspired’ groups. For more, see Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist

Movement and Indian Politics (New Delhi, India: Penguin, 1999).

93 “Other Backward Classes” (OBCs) is an administrative term categorizing an ensemble of suffering from forms of

economic and social backwardness and not benefitting from “Scheduled Castes” (SCs) and “Scheduled Tribes” (STs)

special assistance granted by the Indian Constitution.

94 ABVP JNU Unit, “A Theoretically Sound Reply to the Ignorant Mahishasura Study Circle,” PaRChA Archive

(Pamphlet ID-1458, 21 October 2014). Shweta Raj and Geeta Kumari, “Reject the Forces Who have Always Betrayed

the Struggles,” PaRChA Archive (AISA Pamphlet ID-66648, 20 October 2014).

95 Suma Chitnis, “Education for Equality: Case of Scheduled Castes in Higher Education,” Economic and Political

Weekly Vol.7, No. 31/33, Special Number (August, 1972). S. Visvanathan, “Democracy, Plurality and Indian

University,” Economic and Political Weekly Vol.35, No.40. André Béteille et al., Equality and Individual

Achievement. Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 36, No. 45 (November 10-16, 2001). Thomas Weisskopf, “Impact

of Reservation on Admissions to Higher Education in India,” Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 39, No. 39

(September 25–October 1, 2004)

96 Youth for Equality, “Youth for Equality (YFE) vs. SFI-AISA combined,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72220,

31 October 2007). Central Panel, Youth for Equality, “What we Stand For,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-54657,

9 September 2012).

97 Youth for Equality, [no title] PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72292, 12 June 2006). Prakash Chandra Dash and

Manpreet Kaur, “JNU Chapter,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72338, 10 October 2006). Youth for Equality, “JNU

Chapter,” PaRChA Archive (Pamphlet ID-72313, 13 October 2006).

98 Satish Deshpande, “Exclusive Inequalities: Merit, Caste and Discrimination in Indian Higher Education Today,”

Economic and Political Weekly Vol.41, No.24 (June 17-23, 2006). Sundaram Krishnamurthy. “On Backwardness and

Fair Access to Higher Education: Results from NSS 55th Round Surveys, 1999-2000,” Economic and Political

36

Weekly Vol.41, No.50 (December 16-22, 2006). Jayati Ghosh, “Case for Caste-Based Quotas in Higher Education,”

Economic and Political Weekly Vol.41, No.24 (June 17-23, 2006).

99 Although varying from one admission policy to the other, reservations at JNU are mostly based on quotas and the

attribution of ‘deprivation points’ at the entrance exam, which are also given to students from ‘backward’ districts

and female applicants. See Pranay Krishna, “JNUSU 1993-1994,” in 30 Years. See also “JNU amends admission

policy, Reduces grace marks for women,” NDTV (3 May 2016).

100 Jeffrey and Harriss, “Youth.”

101 Dharminder Kumar, “Revolution, Meet Reality,” The Indian Express (25 August, 2013).

102 See various accounts, Alumni Association of JNU in Souvenirs 2008 and Souvenirs 2009.

103 The list of all former office bearers of the JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) was compiled using three independent

sources: p.188-189 of Kanjiv Lochan, ed., JNU: The Years, An Anthology by the Silver Memoir Committee (New

Delhi: Popular Prakashan, 1996), p.45-46 of the unpublished document 30 Years in Defence of Progressive

Democratic and Secular Culture (New Delhi: JNUSU Document, Unpublished, 2004, courtesy of Rohit Azad) and

various pamphlets of the PaRChA archive (see footnote 79). On the basis of the aforementioned list, 33 interviews

were carried out with former JNU student leaders to compile the job profiles of JNUSU office bearers since 1971.

The interview phase was conducted between January 2014 and May 2015. At the time of collection appropriate

literature searches were conducted in order to corroborate the information collected. Additionally, every senior

respondent was requested to double-check the accuracy of the raw data at hand.

104 A JNU professor, interview, 2014.

105 Jean-Thomas Martelli and Khaliq Parkar, “‘The Political Festival’: Electoral Party Identification in an Indian

Campus,” British Association for South Asian Studies (BASAS) Annual Conference, April 6th–8th 2016, University

of Cambridge.

106 Author interview (2015).

107 Author interviews (2015).

108 Author interview (2015).

109 “Moving his desk closer to one of the registration offices to secure a better position than rivals, a student activist

declared to the ethnographer that, “you see, I have been promoted, I do the administrative work better than them.”

During the registration week of the academic year 2014-2015, activists brought notaries on campus to sign loads of

affidavits necessary for student registration. Later in that year, the larger student organization (AISA) settled a dispute

by cross-checking that the provisional funds of campus workers are transferred to their bank account by the

administration. An activist raised this rhetorical question during the interview to highlight the extent of his

involvement at JNU; “Have you seen any other university where students have to take up this kind of issue?” (Author

interview, 2014).

110 Author interview (2014).

111 Vincent Dubois, The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices (Burlington: Ashgate

Publishing, 2012).

112 James Manor, “Small-Time Political Fixers in India’s States: Towel Over Armpit,” Asian Survey Vol.40, No.5

(2000), pp.816-35.

113 Ward Berenschot and Anastasia Piliavsky. “Political Fixers and India’s Patronage Democracy,” in Piliavsky,

Patronage as Politics.

114 I.e. the All India Students Association, student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) which

dominates JNU student politics since the mid-2000s. For an historical background of CPI(ML), see Nicolas Jaoul,

37

“Naxalism in Bihar: From Bullet to Ballot” in Laurent Gayer and Christophe Jaffrelot, eds., Armed Militias of South

Asia (New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2009).

115 Author interview (2015).

116 Nancy Whittier, “Political Generations, Micro-Cohorts, and the Transformation of Social Movements,” American

Sociological Review Vol.62, No.5 (1997), pp.760-78.

117 Lorenzo Bosi, “Safe Territories and Violent Political Organizations,” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 19.1 (2013),

pp.80-101.

118 Jean-Thomas Martelli, “Historicising Student Activism and their Discourses: a Textometric Analysis” in Mayfarre

et al. Statistical Analysis of Textual Data, Vol.2 (Nice: JADT, 2016), pp.507-518.

119 Eric Hirsch, “Sacrifice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment, and Commitment in a Student Social

Movement,” American Sociological Review Vol.55, No.2 (1990), pp.243-54.

120 Hirsch, “Sacrifice for the Cause.”

121 Nancy Whittier, “Political Generations, Micro-cohorts, and the Transformation of Social Movements,” Vol.62,

No.5 (1997), pp.760-778.

122 The question of the level of politicization of JNU students is a recurrent one among campus activists. Kavita

Krishnan, former AISA leader and current CPI(ML) politburo member writes: “to me, it seems urgent to fight to

defend the ground where thousands of other students will continue to discover such worlds [those of comradeship

and solidarity at JNU]. It remained unclear however the impact politics had on the ‘average’ student” (Alumni

Association of JNU, 2008).

123 Pattnaik, Voting Behaviour. Hazary, Student Politics in India.

124 Di Bona, “Indiscipline and Student Leadership.” Ross, Student Unrest in India. Singhvi, Youth Unrest. Aikara,

Ideological Orientation of Student Activism.

125 Odile Henry, “When Cracking JEE is not Enough,” South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, Vol.15,

(2017).

126 Christophe Jaffrelot and Peter van der Veer, Patterns of Middle Class Consumption in India and China (New

Delhi: SAGE, 2008).

127 The category includes the following states: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya

Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat, Orissa and Jharkhand.

128 I.e. Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Pondicherry, Telangana and Maharashtra.

129 I.e. Meghalaya, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal, Pradesh, Sikkim and Tripura.

130 In some of the models, we had to drop Jammu & Kashmir and abroad categories because there are not enough

observations in these clusters.

131 For a definition of Indian Upper/Middle Class, see Eswaran Sridharan, “The Growth and Sectoral Composition of

India’s Middle Class: It’s Impact on the Politics of Economic Liberalization,” India Review Vol.3, No.4 (2004),

pp.405-28.

132 Jean-Thomas Martelli and Khaliq Parkar, “Radically Representative: Democratic Inclusiveness and Dissent in the

Central University,” Academia.edu [draft paper], https://goo.gl/UXyydh [accessed August 12, 2016].

133 Nivedita Menon, “Sexuality, Caste, Governmentality: Contests Over ‘Gender’ in India,” Feminist Review No.91

(2009), pp.94-112. Lori Beaman, Rohini Pande, and Alexandra Cirone in Franceschet et al., “Politics as a Male

Domain and Empowerment in India” The Impact of Gender Quotas (Oxford University Press, 2012).

38

134 There are numerous accounts of the incidents. See for example Chakravarty, Ipshita. “How the sedition drama has

rejuvenated campus politics at JNU” (Scroll.in, 3 March 2016). For an overview, cf. Jean-Thomas Martelli and Shafi

Rahman, “Republic of JNU,” Tehelka Vol. 8, No. 13 (2016), pp. 32-6.

135 The Hokkolorob (literally, “let there be noise”) movement started on 16 September 2014 after an alleged case of

molestation of a female student in Jadavpur University in Kolkata. A day later, police entered the university campus

where protesters had gheraoed (locked in) the Vice-Chancellor. The violence of the assault triggered protests across

India, including Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. JNU students participated in most of the protests organised in

Delhi.

136 Agitating students of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) in Pune went on a half year (139 days) strike

from June to October 2015 following the appointment of a politician of Maharashtra’s ruling party – and former

television actor – as chairperson of the Institute.

137 Rohith Vemula, a Dalit PhD student in University of Hyderabad (Telangana and Andhra Pradesh), committed

suicide in January 2016 after being expelled from his student residence over charges of violence against a rival ABVP

activist. His death, accompanied by a poignant suicide letter, provoked huge student protests against what several

politicians labelled as an “institutional murder.”

138 Anti-moral policing campaigns and initiatives aiming at reclaiming public spaces in India are triggered by different

local circumstances. Several of them are worth mentioning: “Kiss of Love” in Kerala, “Pinjra Tod” (Break the Cage)

in Delhi, “Pink Chaddi” (Pink Underwear) in Mangalore, “Why Loiter” in Mumbai or “Meet to Sleep” in Bangalore.

139 Craig Jeffrey, Timepass: Youth, Class, and the Politics of Waiting in India (Stanford University Press, 2010).

140 Ajantha Subramanian, “Making Merit: The Indian Institutes of Technology and the Social Life of Caste,”

Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.57, No.2 (2015), pp.291-322.

141 We thank our anonymous reviewer for highlighting this aspect.

1

Tables

Table 1: Political Affiliation of Elected Presidents of JNU Student Union since 1974

Student Organization Parent Political Party Number of Presidents SFI CPI-M 22 (52.38%)

AISA CPI-ML 9 (21.43%)

AISF CPI 1 (2.38%)

NSUI INC (Congress) 1 (2.38%)

ABVP RSS 1 (2.38%)

Other (Non-affiliated org.) None (Ind. or renegade) 8 (19.05%)

Total 42 (100%) The main elected student organizations are: AISA: All India Students Association, student branch of Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist CPI-ML, SFI:

Students’ Federation of India, student branch of Communist Party of India Marxist CPI-M,

AISF: All India Students Federation, student branch of Communist Party of India CPI,

ABVP: Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, student wing of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RSS, NSUI: National

Students’ Union Of India, student branch of the Indian National Congress.

Other student organizations in JNU are:

DSF: Democratic Students’ Federation, associated to Left Collective,

DSU: Democratic Students Union, supporter of the Communist Party of India Maoist CPI(Maoist), UDSF: United Dalit

Students’ Forum, sympathizer of the Bahujan Samaj Party BSP.

Source: fieldwork

Table 2: Occupations of JNU Student Union Office Holders After Leaving Office (1971-2014)

Politician Academic Journalist Social Worker Other Still Studying Total

19 (18.8%) 61 (60.4%) 9 (8.9%) 6 (5.9%) 16 (15.8%) 15 (12.9%) 126 (100%)

Post-office occupations of students who have held one of the following positions: President, Vice-President (post

created in 1978 only), General Secretary and Joint Secretary (also created in 1978). No elections were held between

2008 and 2012. Individuals elected several times and to different posts are counted once.

Source: fieldwork

Table 3: Survey Question for Measuring Political Radicalization

On the political spectrum I consider myself: Extreme Left Extreme Right

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

□ Don’t know / No opinion

2

Table 4: Outcome Variables for Political Radicalization

Political Spectrum Self-Placement Radical (Binary) Radicalization (Ordinal) Don’t know / No opinion False (0) Non-political (0) — — — — 5 & 6 — — — — False (0) Full Centrist (1) — — — 4 — & — 7 — — — False (0) Relative Centrist (2) — — 3 — — & — — 8 — — True (1) Relative Radical (3) — 2 — — — & — — — 9 — True (1) Radical (4) 1 — — — — & — — — — 10 True (1) Extreme Radical (5)

Table 5: Outcome Variable for Participation in Political Events

Frequency of Political Participation Participation (Ordinal) No participation 0

Rare/low participation 1 Occasional participation 2

Regular participation 3 Always/daily participation 4

Table 6: Summary Statistics

Variable Type Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. N Radical outcome 0.36 0.48 0 1 1074 Radicalization outcome 2.00 1.59 0 5 1074 Membership outcome 0.23 0.42 0 1 1155 Participation outcome 1.23 1.3 0 4 1022 Semester of Study main explanatory 3.35 2.92 1 13 934 Hostel main explanatory 0.81 0.39 0 1 934 Highest Degree Earned by Parent control 3.46 1.62 0 5 978 Female control 0.44 0.5 0 1 1121 Admission Category control 1.87 0.90 1 4 1006 Urban/Rural control 1.88 0.88 1 3 941 School Type control 2.31 1.13 1 4 1088 Enrollment Type control 2.26 0.71 1 3 1119 Religion control 1.72 1.07 1 4 1041 Birth Place control 2.29 1.68 1 7 909 Age control 23.77 3.70 16 50 1025

3

Table 7: Logistic Regression on Radical

Coefficient Av. Marginal Effects Semester of Study 0.09** (0.04) 0.02** (0.01) Hostel 1.21*** (0.35) 0.21*** (0.05) Highest Degree Earned by Parent -0.04 (0.07) -0.01 (0.01) Female 0.27 (0.24) 0.05 (0.05) Admission Category

General (baseline) Other Backward Classes (OBC) -0.38 (0.24) -0.07 (0.05) Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) -0.49 (0.33) -0.10 (0.06) Foreign/Other -2.10** (0.83) -0.31*** (0.07)

Urban/Rural Urban(baseline) Sub-Urban 0.11 (0.30) 0.02 (0.06) Rural 0.51* (0.26) 0.10* (0.05)

School Type School of Social Sciences (baseline) School of International Studies (SIS) -0.65** (0.33) -0.13** (0.06) School of Languages (SL) -0.28 (0.32) -0.06 (0.06) Combined Schools (CS) -0.69** (0.34) -0.13** (0.06)

Degree of Enrollment Undergraduate(baseline) Graduate -0.39 (0.38) -0.08 (0.08) PhD -0.35 (0.39) -0.07 (0.08)

Religion Hindu (baseline) Atheist 1.20*** (0.30) 0.26*** (0.07) Muslim 0.43 (0.37) 0.09 (0.08) Other -0.23 (0.40) -0.04 (0.07)

Birth Place Northern states (baseline) Delhi NCR 0.27 (0.47) 0.05 (0.09) West Bengal 0.12 (0.39) 0.02 (0.08) Southern states 0.28 (0.38) 0.05 (0.08) North East -0.40 (0.90) -0.07 (0.15) Jammu & Kashmir 1.88** (0.94) 0.38** (0.16) Abroad

Observations 501 Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

4

Table 8: Ordinal Logit on Radicalization

Coefficient

Semester of Study 0.08*** (0.03) Hostel 0.61*** (0.21) Highest Degree Earned by Parent -0.03 (0.06) Female Admission Category

0.09 (0.18)

General (baseline) Other Backward Classes (OBC) -0.41* (0.21) Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe -0.30 (0.25) Foreign/Other -0.72* (0.39)

Urban/Rural Urban(baseline)

Sub-Urban 0.38* (0.21) Rural

School Type School of Social Sciences (baseline)

0.27 (0.24)

School of International Studies (SIS) -0.68*** (0.25) School of Languages (SL) -0.21 (0.26) Combined Schools (CS)

Degree of Enrollment Undergraduate(baseline)

-0.76*** (0.26)

Graduate -0.30 (0.35) PhD

Religion Hindu (baseline)

-0.19 (0.36)

Atheist 1.13*** (0.23) Muslim 0.17 (0.41) Other

Birth Place Northern states (baseline)

-0.14 (0.28)

Delhi NCR -0.30 (0.30) West Bengal 0.26 (0.31) Southern states 0.13 (0.30) North East 0.28 (0.27) Jammu & Kashmir -0.03 (0.58) Abroad 0.31 (0.78)

Observations 501 Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

5

Table 9: Marginal Effects on Radicalization

Frequency of Participation Category

Non-political Full Centrist Relative Centrist Relative Radical Radical Extreme Radical

Hostel -0.080*** -0.057*** 0.020** 0.048*** 0.031*** 0.038*** (0.031) (0.019) (0.010) (0.018) (0.011) (0.012)

Semester -0.010*** -0.009*** 0.002* 0.006*** 0.005*** 0.006*** (0.004) (0.003) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table 10: Logistic Regression on Membership

Coefficient___ Av. Marginal Effects Semester of Study 0.15*** (0.04) 0.02*** (0.01) Hostel 1.11** (0.48) 0.13*** (0.05) Highest Degree Earned by Parent 0.05 (0.07) 0.01 (0.01) Female -0.42 (0.26) -0.06 (0.04) Admission Category

General (baseline) Other Backward Classes (OBC) 0.10 (0.28) 0.01 (0.04) Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) 0.51 (0.37) 0.08 (0.06) Foreign/Other -0.58 (0.66) -0.07 (0.07)

Urban/Rural Urban(baseline) Sub-Urban -0.19 (0.31) -0.03 (0.04) Rural 0.31 (0.29) 0.05 (0.04)

School Type School of Social Sciences (baseline) School of International Studies (SIS) -0.40 (0.41) -0.06 (0.05) School of Languages (SL) 0.20 (0.37) 0.03 (0.06) Combined Schools (CS) -1.35*** (0.51) -0.15*** (0.05)

Degree of Enrollment Undergraduate(baseline) Graduate -0.37 (0.40) -0.05 (0.06) PhD -0.14 (0.43) -0.02 (0.06)

Religion Hindu (baseline) Atheist 1.32*** (0.33) 0.21*** (0.06) Muslim 1.01*** (0.39) 0.16** (0.07) Other 0.44 (0.40) 0.06 (0.06)

Birth Place Northern states (baseline) Delhi NCR -0.70 (0.62) -0.09 (0.07) West Bengal -0.08 (0.46) -0.01 (0.07) Southern states 0.57 (0.37) 0.09 (0.06) North East -1.40*** (0.54) -0.16*** (0.05) Jammu & Kashmir Abroad -0.54 (1.14) -0.07 (0.14)

Observations 547 Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

6

Table 11: Ordinal Logit on Participation in Political Events

Coefficient

Hostel 0.82*** (0.28) Semester of Study 0.08*** (0.03) Highest Degree Earned by Parent 0.08 (0.06) Female Admission Category

-0.99*** (0.21)

General (baseline) Other Backward Classes (OBC) 0.15 (0.22) Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe 0.26 (0.27) Foreign/Other 0.67 (0.46)

Urban/Rural Urban(baseline)

Sub-Urban 0.52** (0.24) Rural

School Type School of Social Sciences (baseline)

0.76*** (0.25)

School of International Studies (SIS) -0.35 (0.30) School of Languages (SL) -0.26 (0.26) Combined Schools (CS)

Degree of Enrollment Undergraduate(baseline)

-0.78** (0.31)

Graduate -0.44 (0.34) PhD

Religion Hindu (baseline)

-0.31 (0.34)

Atheist 1.31*** (0.25) Muslim -0.15 (0.35) Other

Birth Place Northern states (baseline)

0.08 (0.32)

Delhi NCR -0.33 (0.39) West Bengal 0.01 (0.36) Southern states 0.57* (0.32) North East -0.65* (0.34) Jammu & Kashmir -0.07 (0.66) Abroad -0.95 (0.68)

Observations 498 Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table 12: Marginal Effects on Participation in Political Events

Frequency of Participation Category None Low Occasional Regular Always

Hostel -.163*** (0.057)

0.034* (0.019)

0.042*** (0.015)

0.041*** (0.014)

0.047*** (0.014)

Semester of Study -0.015*** 0.001 0.004** 0.004*** 0.006**

(0.006) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

7

Table 13: Age as Control

VARIABLES Radical Radicalization Membership Participation Study Time (Semester) 0.08* 0.07** 0.16*** 0.07**

(0.04) (0.03) (0.05) (0.03) Hostel 1.22*** 0.62*** 1.06** 0.91***

(0.36) (0.22) (0.50) (0.29) OBC -0.39 -0.36 0.01 0.15

(0.25) (0.23) (0.29) (0.22) SC-ST -0.62* -0.38 0.40 0.24

(0.34) (0.26) (0.38) (0.28) Foreign/Other -1.85** -0.76* -0.73 0.36

(0.86) (0.46) (0.64) (0.57) Sub-Urban 0.05 0.32 -0.29 0.65**

(0.31) (0.22) (0.32) (0.26) Rural 0.60** 0.34 0.35 0.96***

(0.27) (0.25) (0.30) (0.26) Study Level Parent -0.05 -0.04 0.06 0.10

(0.07) (0.06) (0.07) (0.06) SIS -0.60* -0.72*** -0.48 -0.33

(0.34) (0.26) (0.42) (0.30) SL -0.29 -0.24 0.16 -0.29

(0.34) (0.27) (0.39) (0.28) CS -0.74** -0.73*** -1.33** -0.91***

(0.36) (0.27) (0.53) (0.32) Female 0.35 0.15 -0.53* -0.93***

(0.25) (0.19) (0.28) (0.22) Graduate -0.64 -0.59 -0.44 -0.69*

(0.40) (0.37) (0.46) (0.37) PhD/Posgraduate -0.71 -0.58 -0.05 -0.58

(0.49) (0.42) (0.58) (0.43) Atheist 1.23*** 1.10*** 1.34*** 1.32***

(0.31) (0.23) (0.35) (0.27) Muslim 0.36 0.11 0.92** -0.18

(0.38) (0.43) (0.41) (0.38) Other -0.07 -0.14 0.51 0.14

(0.41) (0.30) (0.42) (0.34) Delhi NCR 0.30 -0.26 -0.66 -0.22

(0.48) (0.31) (0.63) (0.40) West Bengal 0.11 0.33 0.04 -0.01

(0.42) (0.32) (0.50) (0.36) Southern states 0.30 0.13 0.76* 0.66*

(0.36) (0.31) (0.39) (0.35) North East 0.21 0.31 -1.31** -0.73**

(0.38) (0.28) (0.53) (0.35) Jammu & Kashmir -0.09 0.18 0.03

(0.92) (0.63) (0.72) Abroad 1.60 0.24 -0.23 -0.62

(0.97) (0.82) (1.14) (0.75) Age (logged) 0.83 1.05 -0.78 0.37

(1.27) (0.90) (1.43) (0.95) Observations 473 473 497 470

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Appendix

The Distribution of the Data

Figure 3: The distribution of various variables

Figure 4: The distribution of various variables

Figure 5: The distribution of age

Figure 6: The distribution of study time variable

Figure 7: Proportion of on-campus residents and day scholars

AGE AS CONTROL

Table 13: Age as Control

VARIABLES Radical Radicalization Membership Participation Study Time (Semester) 0.08* 0.07** 0.16*** 0.07**

(0.04) (0.03) (0.05) (0.03) Hostel 1.22*** 0.62*** 1.06** 0.91***

(0.36) (0.22) (0.50) (0.29) OBC -0.39 -0.36 0.01 0.15

(0.25) (0.23) (0.29) (0.22) SC-ST -0.62* -0.38 0.40 0.24

(0.34) (0.26) (0.38) (0.28) Foreign/Other -1.85** -0.76* -0.73 0.36

(0.86) (0.46) (0.64) (0.57) Sub-Urban 0.05 0.32 -0.29 0.65**

(0.31) (0.22) (0.32) (0.26) Rural 0.60** 0.34 0.35 0.96***

(0.27) (0.25) (0.30) (0.26) Study Level Parent -0.05 -0.04 0.06 0.10

(0.07) (0.06) (0.07) (0.06) SIS -0.60* -0.72*** -0.48 -0.33

(0.34) (0.26) (0.42) (0.30) SL -0.29 -0.24 0.16 -0.29

(0.34) (0.27) (0.39) (0.28) CS -0.74** -0.73*** -1.33** -0.91***

(0.36) (0.27) (0.53) (0.32) Female 0.35 0.15 -0.53* -0.93***

(0.25) (0.19) (0.28) (0.22) Graduate -0.64 -0.59 -0.44 -0.69*

(0.40) (0.37) (0.46) (0.37) PhD/Posgraduate -0.71 -0.58 -0.05 -0.58

(0.49) (0.42) (0.58) (0.43) Atheist 1.23*** 1.10*** 1.34*** 1.32***

(0.31) (0.23) (0.35) (0.27) Muslim 0.36 0.11 0.92** -0.18

(0.38) (0.43) (0.41) (0.38) Other -0.07 -0.14 0.51 0.14

(0.41) (0.30) (0.42) (0.34) Delhi NCR 0.30 -0.26 -0.66 -0.22

(0.48) (0.31) (0.63) (0.40) West Bengal 0.11 0.33 0.04 -0.01

(0.42) (0.32) (0.50) (0.36) Southern states 0.30 0.13 0.76* 0.66*

(0.36) (0.31) (0.39) (0.35) North East 0.21 0.31 -1.31** -0.73**

(0.38) (0.28) (0.53) (0.35) Jammu & Kashmir -0.09 0.18 0.03

(0.92) (0.63) (0.72) Abroad 1.60 0.24 -0.23 -0.62

(0.97) (0.82) (1.14) (0.75) Age (logged) 0.83 1.05 -0.78 0.37

(1.27) (0.90) (1.43) (0.95) Observations 473 473 497 470

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1